[SpicyLemonZest]

Isn't that part even more concerning? Exxon said some true things about its efforts to help the environment, and Massachusetts agrees they were "technically true". But saying these true things was still deceptive according to the state, because saying Exxon is good is like saying that fossil fuels are good and the state thinks they're actually bad.

[cartoonworld]

No, what the state thinks is bad is that ExxonMobil is marketing the global petroleum conglomerate's version of a Safer Cigarette. Tobacco causes cancer; There is no safe cigarette.

The non-lying versions of the ad would be more like: "Combusting hydrocarbons produces, directly and indirectly, large portions of the total global CO2 released every year. The only way to reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions is to consume less combustion products. If you use ExxonMobil Synergy™ and Special Green Mobil 1™ then you could burn 0.65% fewer hydrocarbon molecules in your first 3 months!"

I do however agree with your main point, it probably wouldn't A/B as well.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I agree with the comparison. A lot of the tobacco lawsuits were also driven by moral panic more than any general principle. McDonalds is allowed to say they're working on healthier options even though all their food is unhealthy; Amazon is allowed to say they're working on reducing packaging waste even though they use a ton of packaging.

[cartoonworld]

Yes, the tobacco industry also created ad campaigns from lies. My opinion is that misleading consumers about product harm is also tort. Of course, I am not a lawyer.